Skip to main content

Foiled by Shadows

For composition #5, I searched the backyard again. (I miss Sycamore Grove park.) Not much in the backyard, especially at 4 pm, before the sun is low in the sky. This morning I had reread the section on armature in Ian Roberts' book, and I was looking for an armature that would hold my daily composition together. Something easy, preferably.

Composition #4, with mutated chair.
It turns out I had used a triangle armature (converging lines) without even thinking about it in my single pear composition (the two lines where the table top meets the wall). And my area of interest fell on those lines. These are all good things. I just wish I had done them on purpose instead of by accident. So when I set out to find something to work on in the backyard, I kept the possible armatures from the book in my head.

There were some nice shadows across the patio and sliding glass door, so I positioned one of our patio chairs in the light, half shade, half shadow, creating (so I thought), a nice L armature. Took me 1.5 hours to set up the composition, [poorly] draw it, and shade it. UGH. Next assignment, practice drawing those chair arms. I think that would greatly increase my seeing/drawing skills. And when all was said and done, I had an L armature, but the focal area, the chair, was not at the intersection but rather out on its own. FAIL.

So what happens in 1.5 hours of drawing? The shadows CHANGE. Not just a little change, a BIG change, like there weren't any more shadows on the chair. Luckily I had taken a photo of the scene when I first started drawing, so I could refer back to that. And this is where I learned just how inadequate my iPhone is for capturing a photo with the level of shadow detail I need for a value drawing. (I wonder if my expensive camera would be better. Another assignment.) The photo showed where the shadows were, but it didn't show the right values. How did I know? I used Ian's advice of looking at the current shadow in a similar place for value and color. What looked like black on my photo was really a dark gray and sometimes a mid gray. The photo just didn't have the information I needed. Lesson learned: a value drawing is what I'm going to need to make a good painting, not a quick photo from my phone.
Pear from composition #4 in different colors.
Not what I expected.

One last thing, to follow up on yesterday's post. I painted the pear with "wrong" colors, using a Bob Burridge color scheme. I thought I was being so daring but in reality I just moved one step on the color wheel to orange. And now my pear looks like a gourd. I think this would be great for a pumpkin, but my brain just says it's a "wrong" pear. I think I need to do something crazy, like make the pear magenta or turquoise. Another assignment! And maybe I could also consider a warm/cool color shift while painting. How many new assignments does that make? They are piling up, but I have to admit, I'm liking this self-directed learning, and I feel like I am making progress in my art, finally.

New assignments:
  • Practice drawing chair arms. 
  • Photograph same scene with RX100 and compare shadow results to iPhone photo.
  • Paint pear with REALLY weird colors, like maybe magenta or turquoise.
  • Paint pear with warms in the highlights and cools in the shadows, maybe in reds.
  • Paint pear with watercolors (previous post).

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Back on Track with My Value Studies

Value studies #14, #15, #16. I thought I was getting better, but then I realized they really don't look like anything. Oh no.  Took a little break there. Not a good one. Prescription drug-related side effects. But I've got the issues worked out (I hope) and I'm back to work on my year of value studies. (I'm also rereading " Coaching the Artist Within ," by Eric Maisel, which is a GREAT book to use to tame the inner critic so that you/I can get back to making art.) A few days ago I watched a great promo teaching video from the Tucson Art Academy Online on value. Afterwards, I created three value studies from vacation photos. Studies #14 and #15 are from the same photo, but they don't read as masses that make up an interesting scene. Study #16 reads as three distinct value masses, but you really don't know what it is (a canyon in Zion). I'll need to think about these some more. Barn near Holdener Park, Livermore, CA Meanwhile, I reread ...

Value Epiphany!

For the new year, I've decided that before I start a painting, I'll note the goals for that painting session and/or the finished product if I'm not painting alla prima (in one session). I've sort of informally been doing this for the last couple of months, but now I want to consciously follow these steps: 1) write down my goals, 2) paint, 3) acknowledge that the painting is crap ( see previous post ), 4) note how I did or did not meet my goals, and finally, 5) create a next steps list. Of course, these steps won't be executed until I've done the all-important value studies! Last October I painted a lesson from Dreama Tolle Perry's Flow class , a cute carafe of cream with a white ceramic basket of strawberries. The basket didn't read "white" in my painting, which I didn't like, and I wanted to figure out why...but I wanted to use my own still life to do it.  So I set up a scene informed by Dreama but all my own. My scene used my own props to...

Finishing My Acrylic Complementary Study

I'm rereading Carlson's Guide to Landscape Painting, as I've decided that I really miss painting landscapes, especially in plein air, but the reason I stopped doing it was because I wasn't happy with my results and I wasn't making progress (ugh, watercolors!). Carlson's book is  DENSE. I gave up highlighting it because almost every paragraph would need a highlight, but I am typing up notes as I read, with the hopes of eventually creating a cheat sheet for myself.  One of the first lessons he writes about is his "theory of angles," where, for an average landscape, the sky, ground, trees, and mountains have certain relative values. Thinking about the six studies I just completed , I realized that I had arbitrarily assigned the sky a mid value, to make the house more the focal point, but according to Carlson, the sky should be the lightest value of the natural objects. Oops. So I redid the value study, using his theory. I kind of like it. Looks more ...